Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Carbon Dating Horse Remains

Before Columbus

  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#101 thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

    Is Universe

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,720 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 09:49 AM

Llamas and alpacas do not look like camels. When I see a llama, camel is not the first thing that comes to mind. I grew up near a park with llamas, no one ever through of them as related to camels. In fact, when I was reading Sorensen, this is the first time I found out they were related to camels. 

Tomatoes, potatoes, Deadly Nightshade, and tobacco are related, but they look different.


  • 0

#102 thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

    Is Universe

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,720 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 09:55 AM

Brandt Gardner is wrong: What of the Jaredite word Deseret?

 

We know what that is as the text states, i.e., Moroni gave us the interpretation: Honey Bee.

So why wouldn't Nephi/Mormon be accurate when writing "Horse", i.e., why should we believe "horse" means "tapir," when he knew what deseret was?

 

It's likely Moroni didn't give the translation for Cureloms and Cumoms because, knowing and seeing our day (Mormon 8:35) he knew Cureloms and Cumoms would be extinct in our day and not commonly known.

He did write "elephants" and it was much criticized until the discovery of mammoths and mastodons in the Americas.

 

Because our modern day Honey Bee came from England in 1622. Kinda late for the Jaredites.


  • 0

#103 rick7475

rick7475

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 463 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 10:07 AM

Regarding the claim Nephites never rode horses. How about their ancestors?

You think maybe Lehi's family and the Nephite Nation which read the Plates of Brass knew about riding horses?

 

http://www.lds.org/s...sort=chronology

 

 

Perhaps Nephi et all did not encounter horses when they first landed, since there are no references until their generations had passed. In the mean time, they could have been the ones that started the trend of riding deer with saddles. Horses may not have been plentiful. Also, in the Old World, some societies tried riding horses, but they gave up for various reasons. I watched the rodeos in Wyoming and Alberta where they road broncos, taming a wild horses isn't easy. Deer might be more manageable. But the Book of Mormon does not mention riding. Horses seem to either pull chariots (perhaps the two wheel kind like the Red River Carts) or are associated with food animals.    


Edited by rick7475, 06 December 2013 - 10:12 AM.

  • 0

#104 Sevenbak

Sevenbak

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,099 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 01:10 PM

Perhaps Nephi et all did not encounter horses when they first landed, since there are no references until their generations had passed....

You are mistaken.  Nephi and company encountered horses, and he wrote about it on the plates, in 1 Nephi 18: 25.

 

Further, I would add that since Nephi mentions both horses and asses, he surely knew the difference, and wasn't confusing deer, tapirs or llamas.

 

And I find it difficult to believe that his nephew Enos, who makes the next reference a generation later, didn't know what a horse was either.


Edited by Sevenbak, 06 December 2013 - 03:26 PM.

  • 0

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

 

-Ezra Taft Benson


#105 rick7475

rick7475

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 463 posts

Posted 06 December 2013 - 04:25 PM

You are mistaken.  Nephi and company encountered horses, and he wrote about it on the plates, in 1 Nephi 18: 25.

 

Further, I would add that since Nephi mentions both horses and asses, he surely knew the difference, and wasn't confusing deer, tapirs or llamas.

 

And I find it difficult to believe that his nephew Enos, who makes the next reference a generation later, didn't know what a horse was either.

 

 

Yep, you are right, I missed that one.


  • 0

#106 Sevenbak

Sevenbak

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,099 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 06:02 PM

Ok, fun caption time.  I'll start.

 

 

 

999638_10152126739760879_1643851998_n.jp

 

ROTFLOL... That prophet who lived in the old world and who was carried away in vision and saw all things from the beginning of the world to the end of time thought I was really a smallish pig-like mammal.  I say neigh!


  • 0

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

 

-Ezra Taft Benson


#107 omni

omni

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 07:41 PM

Let's think about this for a minute.  We have no archeological proof that horses existed in the America's during the time of the BoM, but we have found numerous and presumably much more difficult examples of their existence thousands of years earlier.  

 

We have numerous examples of horses in ancient art throughout the world wherever they were domesticated, but none in Pre-Columbia America.  We do however have countless examples of art depicting every other large animal existing in the Americas.  

 

Lehi and his family arrived in the New World from a culture that had domesticated the horse and was well aware of the its many benefits.  Are we to believe they simply ignored these benefits and instead used them as a food source?  

 

The reason the Roman, Mongolian, and Ottoman empires were so large were because of the horse.  Compare their sizes to the much smaller size of the Aztec, Inca, and Mayan empires which lacked this great advantage. horse has had a greater impact on humans than perhaps any other animal in existence.  Are we to believe that they existed all throughout the entirety of the BoM period, but their impact was so minimal that it shows up no where in the archeological record?  


  • 0

#108 ERayR

ERayR

    Stranger in a Strange Land

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,990 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 09:00 PM

Let's think about this for a minute.  We have no archeological proof that horses existed in the America's during the time of the BoM, but we have found numerous and presumably much more difficult examples of their existence thousands of years earlier.  

 

We have numerous examples of horses in ancient art throughout the world wherever they were domesticated, but none in Pre-Columbia America.  We do however have countless examples of art depicting every other large animal existing in the Americas.  

 

Lehi and his family arrived in the New World from a culture that had domesticated the horse and was well aware of the its many benefits.  Are we to believe they simply ignored these benefits and instead used them as a food source?  

 

The reason the Roman, Mongolian, and Ottoman empires were so large were because of the horse.  Compare their sizes to the much smaller size of the Aztec, Inca, and Mayan empires which lacked this great advantage. horse has had a greater impact on humans than perhaps any other animal in existence.  Are we to believe that they existed all throughout the entirety of the BoM period, but their impact was so minimal that it shows up no where in the archeological record?  

 

Let's think about this for a minute. Where the Nephites came from, where the horse provided many benefits, was open desert where great distances needed to be traversed and the terrain offered few obstacles.  Where the Nephites, in their new environment, traveled much shorter distances in a mountainous jungle environment the horse would, in most places, be more of a hindrance than a help. 

 

The size of these empires has more to do with terrain than the lack of horses.  The terrain where these various empires were located was the limiting factor unless you want to go for helicopter type air transportation.


Edited by ERayR, 07 December 2013 - 09:01 PM.

  • 1

#109 rick7475

rick7475

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 463 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 09:57 PM

Let's think about this for a minute.  We have no archeological proof that horses existed in the America's during the time of the BoM, but we have found numerous and presumably much more difficult examples of their existence thousands of years earlier.  

 

We have numerous examples of horses in ancient art throughout the world wherever they were domesticated, but none in Pre-Columbia America.  We do however have countless examples of art depicting every other large animal existing in the Americas.  

 

Lehi and his family arrived in the New World from a culture that had domesticated the horse and was well aware of the its many benefits.  Are we to believe they simply ignored these benefits and instead used them as a food source?  

 

The reason the Roman, Mongolian, and Ottoman empires were so large were because of the horse.  Compare their sizes to the much smaller size of the Aztec, Inca, and Mayan empires which lacked this great advantage. horse has had a greater impact on humans than perhaps any other animal in existence.  Are we to believe that they existed all throughout the entirety of the BoM period, but their impact was so minimal that it shows up no where in the archeological record?  

 

 

We have archaeological proof, as stated in the beginning of this thread, three samples dated by non-Mormons between 800 BC and 1400 AD. The archaeological record of the New World has not been extensively examined as the Old World, one member in the field on this board stated less than 0.2 %.

 

Lehi and his family may be seen horses being ridden, but does that mean they were trained horse wranglers? I have seen horses ridden and rode them myself. I have seen a dozen rodeos in Wyoming and Alberta, but I haven't the first clue on how to tame a wild horse, let alone design and build proper apparatus such as a yoke or saddle. Lehi and his family in the Old World most likely used Camels for transporting goods. Did they see a need to ride one in the first place, in a land full of jungle? Other jungle empires did not use horses extensively. Were the horses they saw the same variety in the Old World. There was an article linked in this thread that mentioned Old World societies that gave up trying to ride horses because they didn't work out. 

 

Comparing those Empires to the Aztec and Mayans is apples to oranges. The horse existed in Book of Mormon times, but may have been reduced greatly as a food source by the time the Spanish arrived so that they were not a viable option.

 

And how exactly did the horse help the Roman Empire? Up until late in their existence, expansion was done by infantry. Roman Legions were feared by their enemies. Their major conquests were due to their phalanx formations. Cavalry was only used as an auxiliary force. When the Roman Army marched, it did so slowly, erecting forts on the way. It was not a speedily advance. In fact, the Roman downfall was partly due to their reluctance to incorporate cavalry properly. The other two empires existed after the invention of the stirrup, which greatly enhanced mobile warfare. Horses were bred stronger to carry men in armour.

 

I have also stated earlier that the horse was most likely not in abundance to even consider riding or cavalry. Small pockets existed for food supplies.

 

If you want to compare empires, you need to select a similar jungle empire such as the Khmer Empire, with the main city of Angkor. It is close in size to the Mayan Empire. They did not use horses when they fought. Their army consisted of levied infantry supplemented by elephants. Leaders rode the beasts and spear men and archers were on foot. Their civilization was surrounded by jungle, just like the Mayans. Their civilization did not expand like the Romans or the Ottoman Empire. The Nephites also did not have Canon Technology which greatly aided the Ottoman empire to expand.


Edited by rick7475, 07 December 2013 - 09:59 PM.

  • 2

#110 katherine the great

katherine the great

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,695 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 10:02 PM

Let's think about this for a minute. Where the Nephites came from, where the horse provided many benefits, was open desert where great distances needed to be traversed and the terrain offered few obstacles.  Where the Nephites, in their new environment, traveled much shorter distances in a mountainous jungle environment the horse would, in most places, be more of a hindrance than a help. 

 

The size of these empires has more to do with terrain than the lack of horses.  The terrain where these various empires were located was the limiting factor unless you want to go for helicopter type air transportation.

Good hypothesis.  I approve!  :)


  • 0
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
Oscar Wilde

#111 katherine the great

katherine the great

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,695 posts

Posted 07 December 2013 - 10:09 PM

 

And how exactly did the horse help the Roman Empire? Up until late in their existence, expansion was done by infantry. Roman Legions were feared by their enemies. Their major conquests were due to their phalanx formations. Cavalry was only used as an auxiliary force. When the Roman Army marched, it did so slowly, erecting forts on the way. It was not a speedily advance. In fact, the Roman downfall was partly due to their reluctance to incorporate cavalry properly. The other two empires existed after the invention of the stirrup, which greatly enhanced mobile warfare. Horses were bred stronger to carry men in armour.

 

I have also stated earlier that the horse was most likely not in abundance to even consider riding or cavalry. Small pockets existed for food supplies.

 

If you want to compare empires, you need to select a similar jungle empire such as the Khmer Empire, with the main city of Angkor. It is close in size to the Mayan Empire. They did not use horses when they fought. Their army consisted of levied infantry supplemented by elephants. Leaders rode the beasts and spear men and archers were on foot. Their civilization was surrounded by jungle, just like the Mayans. Their civilization did not expand like the Romans or the Ottoman Empire. The Nephites also did not have Canon Technology which greatly aided the Ottoman empire to expand.

I kind of read into his argument that the horse was used in the expansion of the Roman and Mongol empires more as a means of transportation across vast distances than just in battle.  At least I think that's what his argument was.


  • 0
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
Oscar Wilde

#112 rick7475

rick7475

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 463 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 06:36 AM

I kind of read into his argument that the horse was used in the expansion of the Roman and Mongol empires more as a means of transportation across vast distances than just in battle.  At least I think that's what his argument was.

 

 

I agree with the Romans, but the Mongols expanded by conquest through fast moving light cavalry. But as mentioned above, these empires were not mired in jungle. 


  • 0

#113 livy111us

livy111us

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:37 AM

Out of the millions of horses that the Mongols did have, we have only recently (within the last few years) discovered any horse remains in that area.


  • 1
"Oh, I don't remember Christ doing any such thing [pointing out the errors in Meldrums theory], I guess its the influence of His brother. What? are you now planning my execution?... You are a fool...You are dangerous to the Church...I hope you get a life so you won't continue to ruin the lives of others" Rodney Meldrum

#114 Sevenbak

Sevenbak

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,099 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:17 AM

Out of the millions of horses that the Mongols did have, we have only recently (within the last few years) discovered any horse remains in that area.

Yep.  Imagine, a whole culture based on masses of horses, and little to no ancient remains where they should have been.  

 

And in the Americas, everything horse related that could possibly date to before the spanish introduction is deemed to be an error, or assumptions are made that it is of later date.

 

There have been many, many rock art specimens of horses, as well as pottery and engravings, in both N, C, and S. America.  They are dismissed based on assumptions.  There have also been horse remains found in multiple Hopewellian mounds, but have been dismissed as being placed there by later Americans, or farmers, or done in attempts to fraud, again because of assumptions.  

 

Little to no legitimate testing is done on such art and remains.   I think this is due to no one wanting to put their neck out where they could lose funding or their careers for such heretical ideas.

 

Fortunately, as has been stated earlier in the thread, we know of at least 3 that have been tested that indeed predate the spanish.


Edited by Sevenbak, 08 December 2013 - 09:25 AM.

  • 1

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

 

-Ezra Taft Benson


#115 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:30 AM

No matter which Book of Mormon model you advocate, its going to be tough to sell a pre-Columbian horse theory that dates to the Book of Mormon. Mound builders have had excavations and not a single horse bone has been found (not yet). 

 

I believe there were horses in the Americas, but I believe they were in small numbers. I do not believe they were domesticated, but mentioned many times before they would have been a great source for food. I do think as archaeologist continues to do their jobs, there will one day be evidence that will be found which shows that the horse existed during the time of the Book of Mormon. There is some out there as this thread indicates in its first pages. For that to happen there will need to be many more horse artifacts and secondary evidence to help change the current view that horses came only with the Spanish.

 

I do not hold the Book of Mormon to be completely accurate about its listing of animals and perhaps that is one of its mistakes as it says itself if mistakes are found they are the mistakes of men. I do hold the Book of Mormon to be accurate and true concerning its historicity and it is scripture. I believe in all the accounts of its people from the families of Lehi and Ishmael up to when Moroni buried the plates. This book is scripture as is the Bible, and archaeologist has yet to find a single unicorn bone as well (in any era of time). 


Edited by Anijen, 08 December 2013 - 09:42 AM.

  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#116 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:38 AM

Just some clarification although it has been relatively recent of finding horse remains that are connected to the Mongols. There has been much secondary evidence found about Mongols and horses.  i.e. in writings (many writings) paintings, pottery and much knowledge has been past down that leaves little doubt of horses at the eve, during, or after the Mongol empire. It is not the same in the Americas where there is very lttle if any as some would claim of secondary evidence for horses.


Edited by Anijen, 08 December 2013 - 09:41 AM.

  • 1

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#117 omni

omni

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:43 AM

Let's think about this for a minute. Where the Nephites came from, where the horse provided many benefits, was open desert where great distances needed to be traversed and the terrain offered few obstacles.  Where the Nephites, in their new environment, traveled much shorter distances in a mountainous jungle environment the horse would, in most places, be more of a hindrance than a help. 

 

 

 

Although the benefits of the horse can vary based on the topography of the region, horses still provided a variety of benefits to the people of North and South America after they were introduced by the Spaniards.  


  • 0

#118 omni

omni

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:06 AM

We have archaeological proof, as stated in the beginning of this thread, three samples dated by non-Mormons between 800 BC and 1400 AD. The archaeological record of the New World has not been extensively examined as the Old World, one member in the field on this board stated less than 0.2 %.

 

 

 

As soon as these findings are published in reputable journal you'll have my attention.  These would be major finds, careers would be made!  There should be institutions lining up to test the bones, first among them BYU...I assume they would have an interest if there was validity to the claims.  I realize most of New World has not been extensively examined, but then why are we able to find countless records of every other large animal in the Americas?  Is it just a coincidence that we have large amounts of evidence for their existence and no evidence for the horse?

 

 

 

Lehi and his family may be seen horses being ridden, but does that mean they were trained horse wranglers? I have seen horses ridden and rode them myself. I have seen a dozen rodeos in Wyoming and Alberta, but I haven't the first clue on how to tame a wild horse, let alone design and build proper apparatus such as a yoke or saddle. Lehi and his family in the Old World most likely used Camels for transporting goods. Did they see a need to ride one in the first place, in a land full of jungle? Other jungle empires did not use horses extensively. Were the horses they saw the same variety in the Old World. There was an article linked in this thread that mentioned Old World societies that gave up trying to ride horses because they didn't work out. 

 

 

 


 

Comparing those Empires to the Aztec and Mayans is apples to oranges. The horse existed in Book of Mormon times, but may have been reduced greatly as a food source by the time the Spanish arrived so that they were not a viable option.

 

And how exactly did the horse help the Roman Empire? Up until late in their existence, expansion was done by infantry. Roman Legions were feared by their enemies. Their major conquests were due to their phalanx formations. Cavalry was only used as an auxiliary force. When the Roman Army marched, it did so slowly, erecting forts on the way. It was not a speedily advance. In fact, the Roman downfall was partly due to their reluctance to incorporate cavalry properly. The other two empires existed after the invention of the stirrup, which greatly enhanced mobile warfare. Horses were bred stronger to carry men in armour.

 

I have also stated earlier that the horse was most likely not in abundance to even consider riding or cavalry. Small pockets existed for food supplies.

 

 

 

 

 

The horse was important for the expansion of empires because of the speed in which messages and directives could be relayed from from the capital city to the outer regions of the empire.  The horse was critical in large ancient empires for this very reason.


  • 0

#119 omni

omni

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:13 AM

I kind of read into his argument that the horse was used in the expansion of the Roman and Mongol empires more as a means of transportation across vast distances than just in battle.  At least I think that's what his argument was.

 

You are correct.  I just recently saw a documentary on the history of the horse and its influence on ancient societies.  They specifically mentioned the reason for the difference in size of the empires was due to the horse as a mean for transportation and ability to relay messages over vast differences.


  • 0

#120 livy111us

livy111us

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:14 AM

Just some clarification although it has been relatively recent of finding horse remains that are connected to the Mongols. There has been much secondary evidence found about Mongols and horses.  i.e. in writings (many writings) paintings, pottery and much knowledge has been past down that leaves little doubt of horses at the eve, during, or after the Mongol empire. It is not the same in the Americas where there is very lttle if any as some would claim of secondary evidence for horses.

Agreed. It is odd that the Americas have the opposite evidence as Mongolia did. Horse remains but lacking in the secondary evidence. I think it should be noted that it isn't necessary to have primary and secondary evidence for horses to have existed in the Americas. Either one would make a strong case for their existence.


  • 0
"Oh, I don't remember Christ doing any such thing [pointing out the errors in Meldrums theory], I guess its the influence of His brother. What? are you now planning my execution?... You are a fool...You are dangerous to the Church...I hope you get a life so you won't continue to ruin the lives of others" Rodney Meldrum


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users